AV-Comparatives: Whole product dynamic test

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Link in the right hand corner of the page.


Sorry if this has already been posted

 

Lots of tests being released today. Nice to see

 

This has been a good day for Norton. It somewhat proves what they have been saying about testing the whole product vs just part of it. Shows what really happens

 

A very good day for Symantec. Nice to see Eset included in this test since it wasn't included in the AV-test.org dynamic test. Excellent work, as usual, by IBK.

 

Norton wins again xD seems that their approach to the Cloud AV's is the best one, I would like to see also Panda on AV comparatives.

 

It gets increasingly convoluted to navigate AV-C's website. Even so, good information -- but "rankings" are markedly different from the recent tests by AV-test.org. Which ranking is more valid, I wonder?

 

Good to Avast
There was a free beta version tested without working Behavior Shield..

 

Kaspersky's back!

 

LOL! My thought precisely... but I felt like too much of a dummy to come back and ask how to find the results!

 

Use the browsers find feature. Type the name and go.

 

Even better, if you consider:

It’s a bit of a mystery to me why the Download Insight capability was not considered, when the objective of the test is to simulate “real-world conditions.”

 

Mainly because a customer that clicks ok to everything would prob do so to this even tho the information offered should be considered. But again even I watch that warrning when it pops up when downloading unknown files. Guess its all in all just the way you look at how that warning is represented.

 

For being new, MSE is doing very well for a freebie.

 

Pitty they did not mentione DefenseWall, it was tested according the same methodology and scored a 100 out of a 100, see http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/single-product-reviews


In the test of MRG, DefenseWall also scored a 100%, see http://www.anti-malware.ru/antivirus_test_zero-day_protection

Anyone who did not pick his/hers free copy, will tear his/her hair out when the DW FW also gets a 100% on Matousec.

As said shameless policy and access management troll, writing this from a PC whch is only defended by the OS its fine internal mechanisms LUA + SRP + ACL + Group Policy settings for IE8, including mime sniffing, click jacking protection, browser hijacking, zone elevation protection, plug-in/add-only allowed by me (the admin )


Note: DW is on my wife's PC.

Regards Kees

 

Yeah they have been really well now tighten up the screws I think.

They performed really good in every test AV-test.org,AV-Comparatives,also in firewall test also. Keep it up

Also good for symantec, avast they also performed really well.

 

if Kaspersky wuld just make their program lighter, id probly be using it.

but im hoping A-Squared gets tested at some point.

 

Maybe its always been here, but never been properly tested to show how well it actually protects users (dynamicly tested)

Great to see AVC and AV-Test's dynamic tests finally released, some more relevant tests showing how well users are protected. Additional protection features in products paying-off now for test results rather than only on-demand detection.

 

Lighter

 

This test would seem to me to be the best real world indication of the effectiveness of the AV.

I am not sure why the on-demand tests do not show a similar ranking. However, Norton and Avira remain at or close to the top. I am glad to see Kaspersky doing so well after the poor showing on the on-demand test.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Thats 3 real-world tests in a row
- AV Comparatives
- AV Test
- Dennis Labs

Are the Norton naysayers taking notice ?

 

but heaven forbid, a freebie just about out did all those high priced specialty products. And in time, I bet it does. shiver

 

Actually most the so called "High priced" Products took the top. So all in all Paid still did better then free. Tho Free is a awesome alternative as its been shown.

 

KAV and others

 

Basing opinions upon evidence hasn’t typically been a hallmark of the “Norton naysayers,” so I do not anticipate their “perspectives” to be altered in the least, unfortunately.

In fairness, however, it is important to remember that these results -- while very impressive for Norton, indeed -- are a snapshot in a moment of time. As all anti-malware vendors continue to make enhancements, the rankings will ebb and flow.

Nonetheless, on a general note, two key lessons gleaned from all three tests are: (1) the selection of an anti-malware product does have a significant impact on the level of PC protection provided; and (2) the magnitude of disparity of malware protection performance, from best-to-worst, is considerable. Thus, genuine and substantial differences among anti-malware products do exist.

 

It is odd that FPs in this particular case weren't taken into account. Virus Bulletin has failed Avira for 1 FP on one occasion. I agree with Bellgamin when he wonders "which ranking is more valid". I also would have liked to see tests for Prevx and other pure in the cloud applications.